hat the Republicans are basically a criminal enterprise? I don't feel like you could. When we talk about Republicans it's usually something like they're fighting with each other about something. It's not that they've organized a multi-year gigantic organized hoax. I don't see that. It's only one side that seems to be doing that.

Well here's a semi-fake news that NPR and PBS funding has been cut by the Senate. Now of course the House would have to approve of the tweaks that the Senate made but we assume that will happen. So the Congress will pull back 9 billion in funding, federal funding that would have gone to NPR and PBS. Now the part of it that's fake news is that I think most people assume that's where all the funding comes from but I think the reality is it's a somewhat smallish percentage of their total operation. So it doesn't mean NPR and PBS will go away. Probably just means they'll work harder on their private fundraising, my guess.

President Trump apparently sidestepped some Epstein questions on his latest spray — they call it. Some CNN reporter asked whether he'd consider appointing a special counsel to look into the Epstein stuff. And I think he's not opposed to it but maybe he didn't weigh in on it. But he does say he wants people to move on from that story. And he says that the people demanding the Jeffrey Epstein files be released are quote stupid and foolish. Now what's interesting about that is that he's describing about half of his supporters as stupid and foolish. Now I'm not one of them, meaning that I've not demanded that they release more because I'm satisfied that we elect people whose job it is to tell us if there's something we need to see. And I like those people. And I think that if they decided we shouldn't see something, I'm okay with that. I don't feel like I'm the backseat driver where if Dan Bongino says no there's nothing here to see I don't feel like I need to dig into it personally. Didn't we hire Trump to hire people, you know to appoint people and hire people who would get what we want done? So there's no guarantee that there isn't some dirty stuff in there that we'd like to see and we should see but I don't think it's stupid or foolish to ask for it. So Trump is trying to turn this into another Democrat hoax and only part of it is a hoax. The hoax is the part that the reason he doesn't want to release things is because he's involved.

But suppose they got some kind of special counsel to look into it. Would you be satisfied with whatever the special counsel came up with? Because what would happen if the CIA said here's the deal special counsel it's a state secret and you're not allowed to tell anybody. Could the special counsel say well I'm special counsel you can't tell me that I'm going to do it anyway? I don't know. I don't know if a special counsel would get us everything we need to know.

Elon Musk is still on this and he asked Grok on X. He said there was a leak of cell phone tracking data on the island, Epstein's island, and he asked Grok, can you correlate that with the individuals who visited the island and then assess the probability that those who went to Epstein Island despite having planes of their own did so purely to save gas. And Grok said the flight logs show Bill Clinton visited Little St. James 12 plus times. Prince Andrew was there multiple times. Alan Dershowitz was the lawyer. Kevin Spacey, Chris Tucker, they have all been there. And Trump flew on the plane seven times but he never went to the island. So and then there were a bunch of devices that were logged and hypothetically you could find out who was using their cell phone on the island to confirm that they were there.

Now if Bill Clinton went to Little St. James 12 times, do you have any question whatsoever about what he did while he was there? Do you really believe that Bill Clinton went to Little St. James without his wife 12 times and that he went there because he liked the beach or he liked hanging out with his friend? Really. There's actually no other reason that he would have gone there 12 times unless he was doing some stuff that maybe you wouldn't want to know. So I'm wondering if Bill Clinton is the reason that these files are not fully disclosed. Do you think it's Bill Clinton? It might be because he would be certainly somebody that the entire Democrat machine would want to protect because it would be a way of protecting Hillary at the same time and you know sort of protecting the Democrats in general. But I feel like if we know that Bill Clinton went to the island 12 times and then nothing is being released to us, as in nothing happened, come on. Let's be serious. At the very least they're covering up for Bill Clinton. Would you agree? Whatever else they're covering up for I don't know. But if you're telling me that they're not covering up for the guy who went there 12 times without his wife 12 times. I mean let's be serious. Of course he was involved in things he doesn't want you to know about. I mean I feel like it's just screamingly obvious.

The people who were on Epstein's plane like Trump, I feel there's no direct evidence that he did anything illegal on the plane. And I guess they lived in about the same place and traveled back to New York City a lot. So sometimes it was just easier or wanted to hang out with his friend or whatever. I don't know. But what we know from Dershowitz is that there was no client list per se. Remember Dershowitz was Epstein's lawyer. So he knows more than we do. He knows the names of the accused. So there are people who have not been named who have been accused. He says that Trump is definitely not accused. There's nothing about Trump there that's an accusation in the files. And he believes that the CIA were not involved with Epstein because Epstein would have mentioned it to his lawyer who was Dershowitz if he wanted to have the best leniency. To which I say really do you believe that the CIA would agree that he was working that they were working with Epstein if the topic was underage children? I don't think so. I think that if the CIA were involved in that operation that if Epstein gave up the CIA and said oh you know not only is Epstein himself doing these illegal underage women things but the CIA is part of the operation. Do you think he would throw the CIA under the bus and say yeah they're trafficking children if they were. I'm not saying they were but if they were, so I'm not buying Dershowitz's explanation on this. I'm not buying the explanation that if he was working with the CIA he would have mentioned it. You would mention it if you were working with the CIA to spy on Russia, well then you would mention it. Or to get secrets from China, well then you would definitely mention it to your lawyer. But if the context is did you do some of the worst things that the public can imagine, sex trafficking of minors, do you think that even Epstein would give up the CIA? Because it seems like they would have to kill him if he did.

Well and then I guess I would take some fact checking on this next point I'm going to make. Did Dershowitz say that Epstein was not involved with an intelligence entity because he would have told Dershowitz so he could get a better deal. But would that include if he worked with Mossad? If Epstein had worked with Mossad, and I don't know that he did but if he did, how would that get him a better plea deal in the United States? That doesn't seem connected, does it? So can Dershowitz really say well — and he didn't say this but could he say I know he wasn't working with Mossad or MI6 or the Saudis because he would have mentioned it to be his lawyer so he could get a better deal. How would you get a better deal if you were working for the intelligence agency of another country? That would be the opposite of getting a good deal, right? Yeah. So I feel like Dershowitz is finding some clever ways to say that Epstein didn't have that intelligence contact but it doesn't sound believable. So judge for yourself.

All right. And then Mike Benz, who's also on the case here with the Epstein story, he notes that there is a normal and routine thing that the press does and the CIA does when somebody is alleged to have worked with them. Apparently there's a database that you can search for somebody's name to find out if they work for the CIA. Now I think only the CIA has access to it. But it's fairly routine that people get blamed as being a CIA asset. So the CIA also doesn't know at some levels of management they don't even know who's working there because there's so many secrets. So they have a system where if there's something in the news that says some character works for the CIA they can type that person's name into their database and then they could make a statement later saying no he's not ours. Or if it is theirs they can say no comment. And Mike Benz has some way that he can check to find out that there has been no name search for Jeffrey Epstein despite it being the main question that's been in the news for years. And he's having trouble believing that this research was never done because it's the most routine thing you would do. And since it's such a high-profile case of course you would do it on this one. But the evidence is it wasn't done. Why would that be? Well we can only think of one reason.

Trump was meeting with the crown prince of Bahrain who really looked like he liked Trump